Vitali Klitschko vs George Foreman

[Barn]

Young Foreman is a KO < 5
Old Foreman will win a la Moorer imo.

[Holtol]

It should be an easy fight for Forman. Because Forman fought far past his best he is a good way of mesuring many boxers. He gave Holyfield a tough fight was 30 pounds over weight in his 40s after a 10 year lay off. This tells me at his best that he beats Holyfield,Bowe,Tyson,Lewis,Vitali. This method does not work against Wlad. But if I had to take a guess I think Forman would beat Wlad also.

[NChristo]

He gave Holyfield a tough fight was 30 pounds over weight in his 40s after a 10 year lay off. This tells me at his best that he beats Holyfield,Bowe,Tyson,Lewis,Vitali.

Triangle theories do not work at all, besides the young Foreman had a different mentality and style to the old Foreman who paced himself and was more technically sound.

[Holtol]

Triangle theories do not work at all, besides the young Foreman had a different mentality and style to the old Foreman who paced himself and was more technically sound.

Yeah I know they don't predict fight outcomes perfectly. But nothing really does predict sports 100% all the time, you think my system for predicting Forman against Vitali is not very good. But I like to use as many facts as possible when problem solving,That's just my style. I do take other things into account also.

[NChristo]

Yeah I know they don't predict fight outcomes perfectly. But nothing really does predict sports 100% all the time, you think my system for predicting Forman against Vitali is not very good. But I like to use as many facts as possible when problem solving,That's just my style. I do take other things into account also.

It's not a fact though, it's more an assumption, I know nothing can predict an out come 100% correct but triangle theories don't help at all, there's too many variables in boxing for it too work.

[sonnyboyx2]

Honestly I don't see what everyone else seems to see in Vitali, he lost to the 2 best boxers he faced one of them that was well past prime and fat, I don't see how that can somehow lead to him having a chance against anyone in History, I just don't.





I know right ?, his performance against an old shot Briggs (Who wasn't that good in his prime anyway) definitely shows that he would be able to beat any live and prime ATG opponent.

i agree... of all the heavyweight champions i have ever seen Vitali is the worst.. i find him "Funny" to watch as his boxing ability is so bad and all he is good at is "Being Big" he uses his height exceptionally well against the very mediocre caliber of opponents which he chooses to fight, Vitali cannot even throw an over-hand right and is always knackered after 3rds, his footwork is the worst in history and in my opinion he is just garbage.. Vitali vs Foreman would unfold in a similar manner to Lewis vs Grant.

[Holtol]

It's not a fact though, it's more an assumption, I know nothing can predict an out come 100% correct but triangle theories don't help at all, there's too many variables in boxing for it too work.

I think triangle theories work often I am not sure how often though. Sure sometimes they do not work. They should be correct over 50% of the time though if they are well thought out. For instance I am not a very good boxer so if I fought Sam Peter and Peter knocked me out quickly. You would quickly see that I am in a lower class then Wladimir or Vitali. And it would prove to be correct. There likely have been many cases like this over the years. You can see when some one is out classed and can make good triangle theories. There are many factors to take into account though. You can't just say Sergio beat Pavlik so he would beat Taylor and Hopkins at 160. That would be a not very well thought out triangle theory.

It is a fact that an old Forman did well against Holyfield. Better then Tyson did who was less washed up then Forman. And at his peak Lewis lost against an old Holyfield in the second fight. And Vitali did not prove himself to be better then an old Lewis. These are all facts.

[Sparked_1985]

When did Foreman struggle against Taller fighters? I can only think of one guy who was taller than him by any real margin and that was 6'6 Cooney who he Koed with ease. Foreman is listed as 6'3 1/2 in his young years and 6'4 in his come back. His reach is 82.

vitali is stronger than Cooney but a prime George would surely be able to deal with Vitali.

Axel Shultz, Shannon Briggs for starters he struggled against. And Shulz was not good at all. Never bothered with the Saverese fight but I'd imagine he struggled in that one too even if he was about 100-years-old by that time.

[NChristo]

I think triangle theories work often I am not sure how often though. Sure sometimes they do not work. They should be correct over 50% of the time though if they are well thought out. For instance I am not a very good boxer so if I fought Sam Peter and Peter knocked me out quickly. You would quickly see that I am in a lower class then Wladimir or Vitali. And it would prove to be correct. There likely have been many cases like this over the years. You can see when some one is out classed and can make good triangle theories. There are many factors to take into account though. You can't just say Sergio beat Pavlik so he would beat Taylor and Hopkins at 160. That would be a not very well thought out triangle theory.

I think triangle theories work often

In shallow cases they may work but I don't think they work often enough at high / elite level for them to be significant in predicting the outcome of a fight, there's been too many fights to prove the theory wrong.

It is a fact that an old Forman did well against Holyfield. Better then Tyson did who was less washed up then Forman. And at his peak Lewis lost against an old Holyfield in the second fight. And Vitali did not prove himself to be better then an old Lewis. These are all facts.

Fair enough, but just because the old Holyfield gave Lewis trouble does not mean Foreman would (although he probably would because of his power) because Lewis fights nothing like Holyfield and Holyfield fights nothing like Foreman, Holy was willing to go in there and risk his neck against Foreman where as Lewis would likely keep at a comfortable distance, control the fight from there and off his jab until he can find an opening. Lewis beat Vitali but that does not mean Holyfield would because he's would not be able to do what Lewis did and overpower Vitali in the clinches and land those big right hands on the outside because of his size.

As said before there are simply too many variables for the theory to work.

[Holtol]

In shallow cases they may work but I don't think they work often enough at high / elite level for them to be significant in predicting the outcome of a fight, there's been too many fights to prove the theory wrong.



Fair enough, but just because the old Holyfield gave Lewis trouble does not mean Foreman would (although he probably would because of his power) because Lewis fights nothing like Holyfield and Holyfield fights nothing like Foreman, Holy was willing to go in there and risk his neck against Foreman where as Lewis would likely keep at a comfortable distance, control the fight from there and off his jab until he can find an opening. Lewis beat Vitali but that does not mean Holyfield would because he's would not be able to do what Lewis did and overpower Vitali in the clinches and land those big right hands on the outside because of his size.
(For record I do think Holyfield can beat Vitali though).

Yes in shallow cases it works most likely close to 100% I know that you know that. Some cases not as well espesialy if the fights are close. Because most sports are games of inches there is some luck involved. A boxer may win a fight, but perhaps the other boxer was hit just right to the body and cracked a rib. Wins are not allways based on who was the higher class boxer. That's where triangle theories fall apart. Plus certain styles effect things like you point out. But even then triangle theories can be used. For instance many people said after Hopkins fought Pavlik that Sergio would give him trouble because of the style. This is in a way a triangle theory.

You are right and I agree with you that just because one boxer beats another does not mean overall he is better and would beat other boxers he lost or struggled against. But I think Forman was a higher class of fighter then Holyfield, Tyson, Lews, Vitali. I think the 60s and 70s had a bigger talent pool and the best of the era were better then the 80s to the present boxers, and I should have posted this originaly. So you would understand that it was based on more then Forman giving Holyfield a tough fight .Just because the Blue Jays win a series against the Yankees does not mean they are a better team. Its just that the players bio rhythms were likely better at that time and maybe a little luck was involved also. Thats why sometimes lower class boxers beat higher class boxers and it makes triangle theories look bad where really they are not. I think Forman would beat them all more often then not but there could be things I am overlooking and underestimating about Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson, Vitali.